L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Last edited by a moderator:
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
I voted for by the book, but my caveat is that I also require the standard array method to be used in character creation. That way, choosing a feat over the ability increase is a more difficult decision. You’re not already starting out with an 18 in anything, and you have to decide whether you really want that feat, you want to increase your prime requisite, or remove the penalty you likely have.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
...overpowered? No, I don't think so, but then it's all relative to the kinds of challenges the DM is putting before the PCs.
I use feats and don't limit their use. I do not craft additional feats - my design time is generally spent putting together challenges and adventures.
Warmaster Horus
Explorer
By the book. Anything else of that type of expanded power is awarded as a Blessing/Boon by the DM and that is very rare.
I allow any feat from the PHB. I do not have time to create new feats. However, if a player proposed a feat then I would scrutinise it, maybe suggest modifications, then if I was happy with it would allow it to be play tested. As DM I would reserve the right too stop the use of the feat, or amend the feat.
abirdcall
(she/her)
This is very important. Feats are overpowered if characters start the game with very high stats.
I allow feats on a case by case basis.
I am in a similar situation where I want to allow them to enable special character tweaking, but I don't want each character to have the same feats.
I currently don't allow Lucky, SS, or GWM at all. I think Polearm Master is balanced by the rarity of magical polearms so I don't think it is a big problem. I only allow a quarterstaff to be used with it 2handed though.
I am thinking about enforcing a 1 full feat/2 half feat limit on characters.
Ath'kethin
Elder Thing
This is exactly my approach.
NotActuallyTim
First Post
Given the ephemeral nature of balance, I don't think feats are overpowered so much as they are occasionally irritating due to the fact that they actually, for the most part, make characters competent at some specific task. For example, if a campaign relies extensively on players remembering things on their own without writing anything down, Keen Mind allows the entire party to skip most of that campaigns challenges, at the cost of one player taking one feat.
However, when every feat in the game combined is compared just playing a level 20 Circle of the Moon Druid, it seems clear that feats aren't the slightest bit broken, but merely a way of punishing DMs who rely overly on one type of challenge for their players. Or possibly a way of punishing players who only like doing one thing, but get annoyed when doing that thing becomes too easy.
However, when every feat in the game combined is compared just playing a level 20 Circle of the Moon Druid, it seems clear that feats aren't the slightest bit broken, but merely a way of punishing DMs who rely overly on one type of challenge for their players. Or possibly a way of punishing players who only like doing one thing, but get annoyed when doing that thing becomes too easy.
crashtestdummy
First Post
Judging the usefulness of a feat depends on the character choosing it. GWM and sharpshooter are not particularly powerful for a wizard, for example, but if you have a fighter with an appropriate combat style, along with supporting party members that can offset the -5 to-hit penalty, then they can be very powerful. No feat is overpowered by itself, but it's possible to build characters/parties around certain feats to amplify their power.
...or you can just review the following quote and decide for yourself if any given feat is overpowered:
Scissors are fine, but paper is overpowered -- Rock
...or you can just review the following quote and decide for yourself if any given feat is overpowered:
Scissors are fine, but paper is overpowered -- Rock
